Tagaziel

Given that the United States has been at war for the past 13 years, you can see for yourself. Also, Vals, I don't consider looking at things expertise, otherwise I'd be a ****ing mountain geologist. Nothing replaces hard numbers and those are quite in favour of the U.S. Of course, that requires doing some research.

You do realize that the United States has the second largest manufacturing industry in the world, right? Differing from China's by a small percentage? Christ, you're not even looking up concrete data, are you, Sarex? The U.S. has been consistently developing its sector for the past forty years. The fact that some manufacturers have outsourced low complexity, cheap item manufacturing overseas doesn't mean that the U.S. has dismantled its manufacturing sector. As the statistics show, it did not. Neither did it dismantle its strategic military industries, such as tank plants, fighter assembly lines, shipyards, and other vital industrial centers.

I would like another study to be made, regarding the possibility of culture influencing democratic deficits. U.S. has a fairly unique culture compared to the rest of the West.

BERSERK BUTTONS DO NOT NOTICE PUNY PUNCTUATION

Yes, it is. Economy is how you utilize what you have, Sarex, and what you do with what you create. Production and R&D may be cheaper, but that doesn't translate into a real edge without a lot of other factors that prevent Russia from being a leading technological innovator.

There were no real volunteers, even per the article you cite. Conscripts and prisoners are not volunteers. Hell, Poland was one of the few European countries where an SS foreign unit completely failed to form. Poles didn't volunteer for the Nazis. Suggestin' otherwise, now that's a paddlin'.

Depends on your goals. There's enough information to formulate an informed opinion. As Rostere points out, war potential is largely a function of the economy. You have to be able to pay for all the expensive toys your army has.

Damn straight. Also, since I now looked at the quoted bit, anyone who knows the first thing about the period would remember that the United States was beyond the Soviet Union in terms of military industrial output due to the fact that it was pursuing a neutral, borderline isolationist foreign policy with a small military and very low military production, while the Soviet Union was on a wartime footing for years, if not decades (since it was a belligerent state from its inception). The fact that the U.S. economy overtook them after just two years and simply shifting gears is pretty telling. If the U.S. was on a wartime footing from the beginning, well, their industrial capacity would be even more terrifying.

Mongolians, actually. Russians were cool when the Reich and the SS realized they're facing kitchen sinks.

Rostere, in another universe, the Tagaziel is demanding your babies. I wouldn't overestimate the Lend-Lease program either. The Soviets didn't hastily move production to the Ural mountains, they methodically disassembled entire factories and moved them hundreds of kilometers inland. It was a massive logistical operation that saved much of their western industrial capacity and was done practically on their own. It wasn't just Kharkiv factories either, it was as many factories as they could safely transport. Those they couldn't just kept on churning out tanks and weapons, like the Stalingrad tank factories where T-34s rolled off the assembly line straight into combat in a proto-C&C fashion. The Lend-Lease program provided a helpful safety margin that helped the Soviet Union mitigate its losses, but stating it was the primary factor in saving the Soviet Union is iffy. After all, the Allies didn't manage to open a western front in Europe until 1943 and 1944, and even then, they had trouble making progress despite facing just about one fourth of the German military potential, since three fourths were occupied just keeping the Soviet advance back. Without the Lend-Lease, the Soviet Union could very well be pushed back and its counter offensives delayed, freeing up German units to counter allied incursions in western Europe... But unless the Reich somehow managed to prevent Soviet offensives, we'd still have the Soviets planting a flag above Reichstag. It was too monstrous a military and industrial power.

Balkanization and the 1990s.

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/07/a-mongolian-neo-nazi-environmentalist-walks-into-a-lingerie-store-in-ulan-bator/100547/

If you read my post, rather than skipping to the end, you'd notice I said "If it's indeed true", because I had trouble believing anyone would be this stupid. Good thing they're not. Love your ad hominems, though. Really refreshing to be called a Nazi.

Wasn't Kiev supposed to be the one with Nazis and fascists and whatever? Joking, of course. This is a very troubling development, if it's indeed true. Though given the antisemitism in Russia, pro-Russians being ****nugget scumbags is not that surprising.

The Russian commandos would shoot Ukrainian forces on sight. Makes conversation a bit tricky.

I like how Russia is portrayed as the good guy, a stable, prosperous nation led by a wise, modest, and truly global-thinking visionary, who is just concerned about Ukraine and tries its best to stabilize the situation there. Meanwhile, Europe and the U.S. are big bad bullies. Oh, poor, poor Russia. You have gone through so much harassment throughout the 20th century. Like when those big bad Poles forced you to invade, then had themselves arrested by NKVD and shot, just to make you look bad.

The difference is that the Euromaidan was spontaneous, decentralized, and uncontrolled. It was an actual protest. If you compare footage from the Euromaidan with the footage from Eastern Ukraine, you'll notice distinct differences, like the fact that the instigators of the protests are armed with Russian military-grade weapons, gear, and don't hesitate to open fire. Euromaidan protesters were not armed with these. You know who was? The Russian special forces that invaded Crimea and seized it. It's precisely the same M.O. and likely the same units. Basically, trying to equate Euromaidan with separatist attempts instigated by Russian special forces is oby-level propagandism.

Being able to point out these shortcomings is a privilege. You know your history, I believe, so I won't insult your intelligence. I wish I could lay claim to the expression, but I recall first finding it on RationalWiki. That's my point. Absolute trust is just as bad as absolute cynicism. The middle ground is being critical, but also giving your elected representatives a modicum of trust. I may be critical of some policies of Angela Merkel and Donald Tusk (two leaders in charge of the countries I live in), but I support and trust them to be good to the country and so far, I don't complain. After all, if politicians are corrupt and you continue voting them in, what does that say about you?

I would say it's privilege blindness, though the western privilege is more subtle than male or white privilege. You take safety, political liberty, freedom of speech, and other rights for granted, to the point that they are not valued at all. Malc, we are not disagreeing with your right to an opinion, but the opinion itself.

We are entering the field of individual conscience, rather than law. The journalists likely believed they were acting in the interest of citizenry and it can be easily argued that Snowden's reveal was made in the public interest. However, as pointed out, by fleeing to Russia, he has prevented this. He has also given ammunition to anyone who wants to discredit him, as choosing Putin as his protector is very doubtful. I'm concerned that this thread has been dominated by whitewashing attempts, attempting to pass off Yanukovych as some kind of virtuous dove of peace, chased out of Ukraine by Nazis. He wasn't. He was a corrupt oligarch who encouraged the corruption of Ukraine, used Berkut to terrorize political opponents, and directly led to the escalation of violence at Euromaidan. His troops kidnapped, tortured, and killed protesters. That is a fact. Trying to pass him off as equivalent to the Belgian royal family or Snowden is just beyond ridiculous. Furthermore, Russia is being presented as the equivalent of the European Union and the United States, in all aspects, including moral. As problematic the EU is at times and how problematic the US state can be, this is a ridiculous assertion. Russia is rapidly becoming an authoritarian state, repressing sexual minorities, waging war on sovereign countries (Georgia and Ukraine are two examples) to make a land grab, and is currently using special forces troops to annex another region of Ukraine. Even if the EU and the US are guilty of similar in some aspects, this does not give Russia a free pass. Tu quoque is a fallacy. The amount of support for the Russian narrative is interesting, though, particularly coming from people living in the EU and the US. EDIT: "Incorrigible reprobate". Man, Bruce, stop seducing me with your silver tongue.

Are you seriously likening Ukraine to the U.S.? And Yanukovych to Snowden? Wow. Just, wow.

Yanukovych was neither overthrown nor was the Parliament pressured into impeaching him. Yanukovych committed high treason and while a case can be made that charges should be pressed before the impeachment procedure was pressed, Ukraine was facing a constitutional crisis. It was an emergency measure implemented to ensure that the nation can continue to function.

Yes, yes it does. The President is the elective representative of the people. If he bails on the people and betrays the very country he was entrusted with, he ceases to be one and, by extension, loses constitutional legitimacy. Constitutional provisions aren't of equal power and in case of unforeseen incidents (such as presidential high treason), you refer to higher level provisions to break the deadlock. Which is irrelevant, as Yanukovych was a tool used by Putin in Ukraine. The fact that he backed out of the EU Association Agreement at moment's notice when a carrot was dangled in front of him and run straight to his masters when he would have to face the consequences for his actions is proof enough. There's also the little problem of betraying Ukraine and asking for a foreign power to commit an act of war against it. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof So far, you're basically claiming that the world is wrong and that Russia is correct. Which, given the retardation of Putin's regime (like the anti-homosexual legislation), is a lot to take on faith alone.

No, no they didn't. Yanukovych bailed on the deal immediately after signing it, which would have caused a constitutional crisis within the country. His flight into the lap of his Russian overlords resulted in an inability to exercise his duties as President, which is one of several instances in which the President can be removed from power. As for the early elections, you do realize that Ukraine is on target for the May 25th early elections, right? The ones throughout the country, on both presidential and local levels? No, no they aren't. Unless you believe "Might Makes Right", which means your ridiculous claims about Kiev's illegitimacy are irrelevant. Ukraine is not a client state. Despite repeated requests to provide sources and evidence, you have presented none that would imply this is the case. EDIT: A peek under my ignore settings indicates the Tu quoque fallacy, in the best tradition of the Soviet Union, is in full swing. Nice.

You know, I can't quite figure out why you think Ukraine should be treated as a part of Russia and that waging war on Ukraine is merely "affirming their interests".